Thank you to iamanatheistandthisiswhy for challenging me to this debate!It is sure to be a fun one ;)

I believe in the God of all religions; the singular, supreme, universal consciousness that all religions lead to. In other words, the God of Religious Pluralism.

Religious Pluralism maintains that a divine reality (i.e. God, afterlife, etc.) exists and that humans can come into contact with it. However, it also maintains that all religions are valid interpretations of that divine reality; that religions represent humanity's attempts at understanding that divine reality based on encounters in it.One crucial point to remember is that all religions, while they may be divinely inspired at heart, do have plenty of man-made components to them, as a result of being human reactions to the divine, as well as being modified by the cultures practicing them over time; this is the primary reason that there are contradictions between the doctrines of various religions. In other words, all religions have parts to them which are false, and one religion as a whole can be "truer" than another religion simply by having less man-made elements in it. Now, this is not to say that only one religion is correct on any given clash between them; many doctrinal contradictions are simply caused by looking at the same concept from different perspectives.

My role in this debate is to demonstrate why this view of God and the divine is superior to any of the individual views it encompasses. Note: atheism and agnosticism are not included in this, as this is not a debate on the existence of God.

Thanks to my opponent for a clear definition. As we discussed before the debate this is a crucial element to make this (and any other) debate worthwhile.

My opponent has claimed that the real god is the God of Religious Pluralism. I will now instead say GORP, as “God of Religious Pluralism” is way to much to type. Also GORP sounds cool. The reasons my opponent gives for belief in GORP are varied but they essentially come down to the core concept that “all religions are valid interpretations of that divine reality.” If I am incorrect in this assumption, please correct me in your rebuttal.

This view is interesting and the core part of my argument against GORP. As my opponent will attest too, if we consider multiple religious scriptures we are faced with a wide variation in beliefs. As such my opponent says that we need to realize that all religions are divinely inspired yet they have man-made parts. Here, I will agree with my opponent that there are many religions that make stuff up, however this is also the core problem with my opponents philosophy.

If we consider religious pluralism, then we have to know what is real (true) and what is not. Stated differently, my opponent has to determine what is truth and what is not truth in these various texts. This is near impossible, as my opponent cannot know with certainty what is divinely inspired or what is man-made. As such my opponent is essentially deciding what is truth and what is good. In this way my opponent is acting in fact like GORP. We can say Romanii is GORP.

Another line of reasoning against GORP would be the monotheistic religions. I would in fact go so far as to say that religions like Christianity or Islam are more reasonable if we strictly adhere to the Bible or Koran. While these books contain irrational thoughts, they are both said to be divinely inspired. Hence a strict literal interpretation of either of these books would be more reasonable than GORP. In this way the believer is not choosing what is true, which is the case in the GORP argument. The believer is also given the benefit of the doubt about what is man-made. This is a reasonable assumption, as they know they are not doing anything wrong as an omnipotent god who inspired these books would not judge them for believing a book that contains truths.

My opponent's main argument is that it is more reasonable to believe in a single "divinely-inspired" book in its entirety than it is to "pick and choose" the parts you like from various religions.I have constructed three rebuttals against that argument.

.

R1) I'm not the GORP

My opponent wrongly assumes that I believe I know all the answers to what the divine reality is like; I have never claimed such a thing. I am not "picking and choosing" the parts that I personally like from each religion to compose my view of God.

I believe it is possible to get a better picture of the divine reality by taking into consideration all religions and seeing the traits they share in common, and I also believe that one can use logic and reasoning to determine which parts are likely to be man-made, but that is very different from saying that I have the power to decide exactly what parts are right and what parts are wrong.

.

R2) "Holy" Scriptures

Pro states that it would be "more reasonable" to just follow one holy book as if it is divinely inspired. Here, I will show why it is not reasonable to believe that books such as the Bible and Quran are divinely inspired; that it is more reasonable to follow religious pluralism's view on them that they are man-made scriptures with some divine truths in them.

The Bible is a collection of over 60 books, written by a variety of authors over the course of almost 2000 years of Hebrews history, ranging in content from ancient mythology to tribal folklore to actual historical record to early Christian propaganda. The Quran is a compilation of Muhammad's teachings written by his followers about 10 years after his death based on his words, which they had supposedly remembered exactly as they were spoken.

Both books do have great teachings in them, since they were written by earnest followers of those religions, but based on how they were written, and coupled with the numerous factual errors and internal contradictions (especially in the Bible), there is a very good chance that they are man-made writings, reflecting the cultural norms of the time and serving other materialistic purposes rather than being the "word of God".

.

R3) Problems with Exclusivism

Many people find only one religion being true to be more appealing than the pluralistic viewpoint, mostly because of the simplicity of the former. However, there are some major problems with any one religion holding exclusive claims to the truth:

Omnibenevolence

Almost all religions say that God is all-loving, so it is safe to say that he is such. However, all exclusivist religions currently in existence also preach the damnation of those who do not follow those religions. This is obviously a problem because

1) for the most part, the religion someone follows is determines purely by the religion they were born into

2) there is no significant outstanding factor in any exclusivist religion that makes it obvious that it is the truth.

Thus, one cannot logically say that it is the fault of the non-believers for not believing in a particular religion, and it is impossible by definition for an all-loving God to punish people for things that are not their fault.

Spiritual Experiences

Spiritual experiences/divine interventions (i.e. instances of contact with the divine reality) have been recorded since the beginning of human history by people of all religions. The only logical ways to interpret this is either that all such experiences are false and explained by materialistic means (i.e. atheism), or that the majority of these experiences are true and actually were caused by the divine. Religious Pluralism opts for the latter.

However, exclusivist religions dictate that only the spiritual experiences/divine interventions associated with themselves can be true, since all other religions are false. But to assume something like that is completely irrational; there is no logically valid reason for believing so.It's either all (most) or nothing.

Lack of Evidence

All claims to exclusivity are recorded within "holy" scriptures, which, as shown in R2, are probably man-made.There are a variety of materialistic reasons that humans could possibly wish to fabricate such a claim, including increasing appeal to potential converts and/or simply generating a sense of community among followers via a shared superiority complex.

.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Religious Pluralism's basis is not in cherry-picking, but in rational analysis of religious doctrines

2. There is no logical reason to believe that any "holy" scripture is the "inerrant, infallible word of God" or anything of the sort

3. Religious Exclusivism has numerous logical flaws to it and has its basis in falsehood

I hand the debate back to his opponent.I look forward to his counter-rebuttals!

Regarding the I am GORP argument. I really would like my opponent to elaborate further on how he knows what is right and wrong. After all, my opponent claims that “I am not "picking and choosing" the parts that I personally like from each religion to compose my view of God.”, yet proceeds to say “I also believe that one can use logic and reasoning to determine which parts are likely to be man-made”. This is a contradiction, as you clearly are deciding what is right and wrong using logic and reason. This means in essence you either do not need GORP, you are GORP, or GORP does not exist.

Regarding the holy scriptures, I never denied that parts of them were man-made. However, I did clarify that an omnipotent god would not judge a person harshly for following a text that is meant to be divinely inspired. This means following the Koran or Bible while irrational (and highly likely to land you in jail) is not at least choosing what a person believes is right. Or stated in a different way, its not using “logic and reasoning to determine which parts are likely to be man-made”.

To further elaborate on the man made and divine parts of religious texts. I would be interested to hear my opponent's point of view on same sex relationships. As all the major religions are against same sex relationships, so how does GORP feel about this.(1) Or are all the religions wrong? This is surely a red flag that should bring doubt into anyones mind.

So when my opponent asserts, there is no “logical reason to believe that any "holy" scripture is the "inerrant, infallible word of God" or anything of the sort” I agree fully. However, that does not deter from my reasons as to why they are better than the GORP concept.

Finally, my opponents argument against exclusivity has various points to it, so I will address them after this short preamble. Simplicity, is a wonderful thing its what we strive for in sport, research, economic models etc. The biggest problems occur when we try over complicate things, this can be seen in the differentials that created the market crash.(2) So when my opponent says simplicity is appealing he is correct, its appealing for all the right reasons.

If we consider my opponents claims for ombinevolence. My opponent says “Almost all religions say that God is all-loving”, however that is not all religions. So how does my opponent know GORP is omnibenevolent? Also how can my opponent say “one cannot logically say that it is the fault of the non-believers for not believing in a particular religion, and it is impossible by definition for an all-loving God to punish people for things that are not their fault.” Is my opponent trying to be GORP? This is the core problem with my opponents argument, he needs to show that these morals are consistent throughout every religion. If he cannot then religious pluralism fails as it clearly is a personal interpretation that does not need GORP.

Regarding spiritual experiences, there are so many good reasons to dismiss them. If we consider near death experiences they can easily be explained by the lack of oxygen to the brain during these death experiences.(3) However, to be clear they are not death experiences as dead means brain dead, and the only reason these experiences are possible is due to the brain not being dead. We should also note that memories of any experience is highly malleable, in fact memories can even be created to fit what a person wants to believe.(4) As such if we are to accept spiritual experience into the argument, it is absolutely necessary that we get verified facts. These facts do not exist as far as I am aware and as such this argument is void.

These arguments show that exclusivity is not as bad as my opponent makes it out to be. This is especially true as we still do not know where my opponent is getting truths from.

In conclusion, my opponent has asserted that religious pluralism is not cherry picking, but it is rational analysis of doctrine. Again, I must reiterate that this is a contradiction. If it is rational then there is no need to accept GORP as we can reach the same conclusions without GORP.(5)

Thanks IAAA, for your counter-rebuttals.Just to annoy you, I will not be using "GORP" this round :P

"This is a contradiction, as you clearly are deciding what is right and wrong using logic and reason. This means in essence you either do not need GORP, you are GORP, or GORP does not exist."

It is not about deciding right and wrong. It is about getting a better picture of the divine reality using logic and reasoning to determine what parts are likely to be man-made.It is the difference between saying "Evolution is FACT!" and saying "Evolution is currently the most well-evidenced theory explaining the origins and development of life on Earth". One is making judgments as if you are God; the other is drawing objective conclusions based on available information (in the case of religious pluralism, that available information is found in the doctrines of various religions as well as history and science, to some extent).There is a clear distinction to be made.

" I would be interested to hear my opponent's point of view on same sex relationships. As all the major religions are against same sex relationships, so how does GORP feel about this."

The only basis for the condemnation of homosexuals within any religion is "holy" scriptures. I have already provided ample justification for the belief that no holy scripture is "God's word" in the previous round. This serves as a very good example of "holy" scriptures simply reflecting the cultural norms of an ancient people, rather than any sort of divine truth.

Religious pluralism's view on homosexuality is that since God is omnibenevolent, he cannot condemn people for sins that are of no fault of their own (this will be expanded upon later), and thus God does not condemn homosexuals.

"Simplicity, is a wonderful thing its what we strive for in sport, research, economic models etc. The biggest problems occur when we try over complicate things,"

But surely my opponent agrees that simplicity is not a valid ground for rejecting what otherwise makes more logical sense?If simplicity decided what is true, then the universe would be made of the tiny spherical atoms that Democritus theorized thousands of years ago, rather than the mess of quantum particles that the modern physics speaks of.

And anyways, my opponent makes out religious pluralism to be much more complicated than it really is. Religious Pluralism is just the idea that a divine reality exists and religions are humanity's attempts at understanding it; and that humans can use rational/deductive insight to see that some parts of religions are man-made rather than divinely inspired.

"If we consider my opponents claims for ombinevolence. My opponent says "Almost all religions say that God is all-loving", however that is not all religions"

My apologies for the confusion. The only reason that I brought up the "almost" is because some religions are agnostic on God's existence (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism).

"Also how can my opponent say "One cannot logically say that it is the fault of the non-believers for not believing in a particular religion, and it is impossible by definition for an all-loving God to punish people for things that are not their fault? Is my opponent trying to be GORP?"

My opponent seems to be accusing me of thinking I'm God every time I use logic to arrive at a sound conclusion.It is simple logic. If God is good and just and all-loving, like all theistic religions say, then he cannot punish people for things that are not their fault because that would be contradictory to his nature. It cannot really be dumbed down much more than that...

"Regarding spiritual experiences, there are so many good reasons to dismiss them."

I must remind my opponent that we are not debating whether the atheistic view of spiritual experiences is more reasonable than the pluralistic view of spiritual experiences or not. We are debating whether the exclusivist view is more reasonable than the pluralistic view or not.I have already explained why the pluralistic view is superior by pointing out the baseless assumption that the exclusivist view relies on, of only the spiritual experiences associated with one particular religion being true.

"These arguments show that exclusivity is not as bad as my opponent makes it out to be."

I have shown that there are, indeed, some very blatant problems with religious exclusivism as well as scriptural literalism in general, such as God's omnibenevolence, spiritual experiences, and a lack of reason.

'"If it is rational then there is no need to accept GORP as we can reach the same conclusions without GORP."

This does not make any sense... how does religious pluralism being a rational world view logically lead to the conclusion that God is unnecessary? My opponent will need to expand on this...

I have refuted all of my opponent's objections to religious pluralism. I hand the debate back over to my opponent for the final round of the debate.Good luck!

I noticed my opponent has dropped my arguments for determining what is man made and what is divine in religious texts. Or should, I say I do not think a satisfactory answer has been given in anyway or form.

As such any idea about “getting a better picture of the divine reality using logic and reasoning to determine what parts are likely to be man-made.” is flawed, as my opponent cannot be sure what is man-made and what is divine. So while I agree with my opponents evolution argument, this does not help explain how my opponent is determining what is true.

I am glad my opponent took the time to explain the religious pluralists view on homosexuality. It is something that I agree with completely. Unfortunately, I came to this conclusion with no GORP which negates the need for GORP. In fact I am came to this conclusion with no god whatsoever. Also interesting is that we still do not know how my opponent is determining what is right and what is wrong in religious texts. It could be that GORP still disapproves of homosexuality even if GORP is omnibenevolent.

I agree with my opponent that simplicity is not a reason to dismiss something more complex. I was purely using the idea to show logical inconsistencies. What is interesting, is that the atomic model of Democritius is still used to visualize molecules for a basic understanding before delving deeper. Hence, simplicity is sometimes still favored as can be seen below for the CO2 molecule.

Simple model

Slightly Complex model

And this slightly complex model is only the basic atomic orbitals. It still does not even come close to describing the reality on the quantum level. However, the simple model is used mostly as it satisfies most needs.

Regarding morality, it is a well established fact that morals change with time. For example, slavery is mostly not accepted in the world anymore. In contrast 150 years ago it was completely acceptable. This means morality is subjective, as such morality is not objective or determined by GORP. This means we do not need GORP to determine what is correct. I agree we are not debating whether there is a god or not, however I should point out the logical conclusion. Please I want to point out to voters again here, this is not a debate on the existence of god!

Regarding religious exclusivity, religious exclusivity holds the same problems as religious pluralism. This problem is we do not know what is man-made and what is divine. However, it is still a more rational belief, as a god will not judge someone unfairly that follows everything in a religious text even if it is wrong.

In conclusion, my opponent has still not addressed how he knows what is man made and what is divine. The only reason for this decision is a feel good mechanism, but this is not rational.

Additionally, my opponent has not been able to show one moral that exists in all religious texts which would make religious pluralism at least plausible. Also this truth should surely be something cannot that can be reached without GORP, which is contradictory to what we know about morality and its subjectivity.

Thanks again to my opponent for a most stimulating debate. I wish you all the best in future debates and good luck in your last round.

Let's give IAAA a round of applause for that great concluding argument!Now let's go ahead and refute it!:D

.

R1) Determining Truth

My opponent's main argument here seems to be that we cannot know for sure what is divine and what is man-made.I have already addressed this argument numerous times, now.I never claimed to know for sure what is divine and what is man-made; I simply claimed that one could get closer to the truth via logic and reasoning.I have already shown a few examples of this being done with the explanations and justifications of religious pluralism's views on holy scriptures, omnibenevolence, homosexuality, and religious exclusivity.

And again, I must stress a very important point, that Religious Pluralism is NOT some sort of syncretic religion; what it IS is the most realistic theistic world view, operating under the assumption that a divine reality exists and keeping consistent with all available evidence (theological, historical, scientific, etc.).The "rational analysis of religious doctrine" (what the majority of this debate has been about) just represents human attempts at gaining a fuller picture of the divine reality by taking into account all sources of information on it (i.e. all religions).

This seems to be a contention that my opponent has been hammering quite a bit throughout the debate.However, it really does not make any sense. Just because we are able to arrive at reasonable conclusions about the nature of the universe and the divine reality by ourselves does not mean that there is no need for a God.His contention relies on the assumption that God's only role in the universe is to help humans learn about reality, yet that is not the case in any religion.My opponent's argument from non-necessity is based on an invalid assumption.

R3) Simplicity of Exclusivism

I fail to see how my opponent's analogy regarding carbon dioxide molecule models affirms his side of the resolution at all. So sometimes simpler models serve our purposes better than complex ones, but that still does not change what the underlying reality really is; just because it would be simpler to irrationally follow a single book as if it is divinely inspired does not mean we should choose that over the more rational, slightly more complex answer.Simplicity does not decide what is real.

My opponent's point that "a god will not judge someone unfairly that follows everything in a religious text even if it is wrong" does not relate to the debate at all. I never claimed that God is punishing religious fundamentalists for having inaccurate beliefs...

Also, my opponent has not responded to my objection that he is misrepresenting pluralism as being much more complicated than it really is (my R1 this round has a good summary of how simple religious pluralism really is).

R4) Morality

I am not sure what my opponent was trying to accomplish with this contention... he made an argument from subjective morality against the existence of God, only to go back and point out that arguments against the existence of God are irrelevant to the debate at hand. He seemed to be trying to make another argument from non-necessity, but again, that argument is based on the invalid assumption that God's only role in the universe is to help humans make good choices.

R5) Final Objection

"Additionally, my opponent has not been able to show one moral that exists in all religious texts which would make religious pluralism at least plausible"

I have, actually... the omnibenevolence of God.Also, there is the sinful nature of human beings.And not to mention the tenets of love for the self, love for others, and love for God. All of these ideas are present in some form or another in all major religions.

Note that my mentioning these things for the first time now is not a breach of conduct, as my opponent did not bring up this objection until the final round either...

.

CONCLUSIONS

-- Religious Pluralists do not claim to know everything about what is divine and what is man-made; they make rational conclusions based on an analysis of all sources of information to get closer to the truth.

-- Religious Pluralism is not that complicated; it is just a very rational theistic view of the universe, being consistent with all available theological, scientific, and historical evidence.

-- Con's arguments from Non-Necessity, Simplicity, and Morality have been completely refuted.

-- The numerous similarities between the central doctrines of many religions is plenty even by itself to make Religious Pluralism a plausible option.

Religious Pluralism has been demonstrated to be a more rational view of God than any of the individual views it encompasses.

Con, if you have this debate in the future consider a list of attribute for pro to choose from. Include attributes such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscient, etc. if they simply say yes or no to all those attributes, it will give you more to work with.

Hi Romanii, just to clarify. I did bring up the argument "This is the core problem with my opponents argument, he needs to show that these morals are consistent throughout every religion." in round 3, and just mentioned it again in round 4.

But no problem, I just didn't want you to think I was cheating you. Additionally, there were no rules to the debate, beside first round acceptance. ;)

Reasons for voting decision: I'm not awarding source points, as this was a more philosophical debate. Con said he'd show why pro's God wasn't the real god. Unfortunately Con didn't do this. Pro didn't do enough to explain the attributes of his God. I found this a little unfair. I don't believe it's an intentional conduct violation so I'll refrain from voting in that category as well. Pro really needed to give a lot more details on the attributes of his God so con would have a fair chance at attacking that view. However pro did bring up omni benevolence as a trait. So con did have something to argue against. If con would have brought up some arguments against omni benevolence than even if they were shot down he may have got argument points as a result of pro's lack of defining his god clearly enough. There is plenty of arguments to work with such as the famous "problem of evil", that con could have used to shoot down pro's version of God. As it is. I give arguments to pro.

Reasons for voting decision: This debate deviated from the original resolution. Con completely left his Man-Made vs Divine Inspiration set up in favor of making this a debate centering on the Con attack the Pro's arguments and the pro defending their argument. The Con also deviated in his attacks on the pro's case(an example would be gay marriage point which was not really needed). The Con did extremely well in the 3rd round, as all of the Con's arguments that did not deviated were on point. Had the debate ended there I would have easily gave it to the Con. But surprisingly enough the Pro was able to turn it around a push across the points that were dropped or deviated upon. The source vote was given due to Con being the only side to use sources, but I feel as these sources were not exactly topical. If I could give a half source vote then I would.

Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate, but it strayed a little from the topic. The debate was concerned with whose belief of God was "better" (I use the term loosely) than the other. Con seemed to consistently address the idea that, because we can reach logical conclusions regarding GORP, GORP is not necessary. While this may have been a viable refutation, Con failed to provide a link between his argument and conclusion, producing a kind of non-sequitur. Another important factor in this debate was Occam's Razor. Although never explicitly stated by Con, it was the same idea (we should accept the "hypothesis" with the least amount of assumptions - the simpler one). While I don't feel as though Pro properly addressed the argument against it, Con seemed to focus more on the idea of accepting the simpler hypothesis rather than actually refuting the argument that was provided (the problems with exclusivism and the common traits among them, such as omni-benevolence).

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.